The ecosystem will take damage under any form of industrial existence. Capitalism, however, is driving innovation towards reducing our carbon footprint. As to alienation from nature, I am quite happy that my wife and child didn’t die in childbirth, thank you. And I like having both heat and air conditioning. I’m good.
What you describe is primitivism but I more advocate for a Solarpunk future. So technology which is in harmony with nature passive: cooling, green energy, perma culture. But your comment perfectly showed what I mean technology is not or rather should not be something separate and antagonistic towards nature.
Could you please define what capitalism is because I think we work with two different definitions.
As for scientific advancement this dose not come from capitalism many scientist and engineers just want to help people that’s how we devolped many vaccines and medication. In addition more and more studies show that scientist are more and more hindered by capitalism through the inaccessiblilty of papers which is kind of paradox since we live in the information age. Also the highe pressure and the unpaid working hours causes that many quit. And that’s something I know since it will be my future field of employment.
A bit short but yes (tbh when I ask this question I mostly get total bs answers)
I want to get into an institute because I don’t want to throw my work into their throat.
Also you might be right there (I am not sure who funds more state or Capitalist ) but also they funded the biggest climate change denial campaigns as well as sabotage of science in addition A you did not invalidated the argument that inaccessibility in science is a big problem here is the studie published in nature https://www.nature.com/articles/356739a0
And once again we live in the information age knowledge should be as easy to access than never bevor but through comodification like that you have to pay 100 € for one studies, from which the people who wrote it get nothing and sometimes have to pay money to get the studie published. It really does not seem fair and inhibit. And this is just one thing that is going wrong in science under capitalism. There is a reason more and more scientists resort to sci-hub to get the studies, espacally when the scientists are independent. And once again the employees do the work not the employer.
That’s why I argue for bottom up common ownership as well as a democratizon of our industry (tbh I can’t tell you so much about the other fields there you should resort to my comarads, since one person can not know everything and I still learn new stuff since society is fucking complex)
But still I tstart.that there would be less ecological damages with a such a system (and don’t come with Soviet was dirty because fuck this authoritarian state-capitalist pseudo-communist state) (oh if you ask you self why I hate the SU while many others so called communists defend it I am not a Marxists-Leninist But an green Anarcho-communist. )
But to ce back to the first comment worker protection is a good start but just a start.
To end this discussion how about a bet. If capitalism survives and dose not destroy or harm our ecosphere in a critical way you get cookie. If it destroies or harm our ecosphere in a critical way I get a cookie (good luck making one under such conditions).
And if capitalism dies and we end up in a Solarpunk future with a nice gift and library economy we both get as many cookies as we want.
Sounds fair, doesn’t it?
All you need to do to get capitalism to independently solve a problem is align economic incentives with solving that problem. Fine carbon producers, pay carbon capture organizations, and / or tax carbon emissions and private industry will figure it out.
Inaccessibility of science is an academic problem, not an economic one
Yeah i see how good that works out…
Also a little Tipp for the future try to think in the big picture. This hughe massiv messsey interconnected incomprehansible picture (our monkey brains really don’t like this) as I said economy effects science it effects the narrative it effects the ecology, it effects the social spheres, it effects the culture. And every aspect of society which are more than I mentioned dose the same and effects every other aspect. Nothing is Isolated it all exsist together. Even an absence of a part effects the whole.
The ecosystem will take damage under any form of industrial existence. Capitalism, however, is driving innovation towards reducing our carbon footprint. As to alienation from nature, I am quite happy that my wife and child didn’t die in childbirth, thank you. And I like having both heat and air conditioning. I’m good.
What you describe is primitivism but I more advocate for a Solarpunk future. So technology which is in harmony with nature passive: cooling, green energy, perma culture. But your comment perfectly showed what I mean technology is not or rather should not be something separate and antagonistic towards nature. Could you please define what capitalism is because I think we work with two different definitions. As for scientific advancement this dose not come from capitalism many scientist and engineers just want to help people that’s how we devolped many vaccines and medication. In addition more and more studies show that scientist are more and more hindered by capitalism through the inaccessiblilty of papers which is kind of paradox since we live in the information age. Also the highe pressure and the unpaid working hours causes that many quit. And that’s something I know since it will be my future field of employment.
Capitalism is the exchange of goods and services for capital and the protection of private property rights
Including the people who will presumably employ you and who fund the majority of research into green technology.
A bit short but yes (tbh when I ask this question I mostly get total bs answers) I want to get into an institute because I don’t want to throw my work into their throat. Also you might be right there (I am not sure who funds more state or Capitalist ) but also they funded the biggest climate change denial campaigns as well as sabotage of science in addition A you did not invalidated the argument that inaccessibility in science is a big problem here is the studie published in nature https://www.nature.com/articles/356739a0 And once again we live in the information age knowledge should be as easy to access than never bevor but through comodification like that you have to pay 100 € for one studies, from which the people who wrote it get nothing and sometimes have to pay money to get the studie published. It really does not seem fair and inhibit. And this is just one thing that is going wrong in science under capitalism. There is a reason more and more scientists resort to sci-hub to get the studies, espacally when the scientists are independent. And once again the employees do the work not the employer. That’s why I argue for bottom up common ownership as well as a democratizon of our industry (tbh I can’t tell you so much about the other fields there you should resort to my comarads, since one person can not know everything and I still learn new stuff since society is fucking complex)
But still I tstart.that there would be less ecological damages with a such a system (and don’t come with Soviet was dirty because fuck this authoritarian state-capitalist pseudo-communist state) (oh if you ask you self why I hate the SU while many others so called communists defend it I am not a Marxists-Leninist But an green Anarcho-communist. ) But to ce back to the first comment worker protection is a good start but just a start.
To end this discussion how about a bet. If capitalism survives and dose not destroy or harm our ecosphere in a critical way you get cookie. If it destroies or harm our ecosphere in a critical way I get a cookie (good luck making one under such conditions). And if capitalism dies and we end up in a Solarpunk future with a nice gift and library economy we both get as many cookies as we want. Sounds fair, doesn’t it?
All you need to do to get capitalism to independently solve a problem is align economic incentives with solving that problem. Fine carbon producers, pay carbon capture organizations, and / or tax carbon emissions and private industry will figure it out.
Inaccessibility of science is an academic problem, not an economic one
Yeah i see how good that works out… Also a little Tipp for the future try to think in the big picture. This hughe massiv messsey interconnected incomprehansible picture (our monkey brains really don’t like this) as I said economy effects science it effects the narrative it effects the ecology, it effects the social spheres, it effects the culture. And every aspect of society which are more than I mentioned dose the same and effects every other aspect. Nothing is Isolated it all exsist together. Even an absence of a part effects the whole.
Yeah it’s been working pretty well